BILLINGS (AP) -- The Saunderses were stunned when they saw the appraisal.

Yes, fuel and food have jumped in price. But the Bozeman family is faced with a Forest Service fee that's set to triple in the next three years.

For nearly 60 years, the Saunders family has enjoyed the rustic cabin on Portal Creek in the Gallatin National Forest. But now, instead of preparing to celebrate its anniversary, they're wondering if they'll be forced to sell their creekside getaway.

''We can't afford it,'' said Anita Saunders, whose in-laws purchased the cabin in the late 1940s. ''At this point, going from $1,800 to $5,200, we just can't do it.''

The Saunders cabin, like 14,000 such properties nationwide and about 300 throughout the Custer and Gallatin national forests, was built on Forest Service land. Although the structure is privately owned, the family pays the Forest Service a permit fee for the use of the land the cabin occupies.

Last year, the property was set for reappraisal. This year, in spite of annual adjustments since the last appraisal, they had sticker shock.

''When it went up two or three years ago, we had to ask everyone (family members) to chip in,'' Saunders said. ''Suddenly it's $5,200. We're retired. Where are we going to get that money?''

SPIDERS AND MICE

The thought of owning a cabin in the forest may conjure up images of trophy homes and out-of-state wealth. But most of the cabins in the agency's Recreational Residence Program don't fit that picture. Nor do their owners.

''These people are not land barons,'' said Geoff Anderson, president of the National Forest Homeowners. ''They're seniors and veterans and people who've had their cabins in the family for five generations.''

The concept of privately owned cabins on Forest Service property dates back to the late 1800s, when the agency established its program for promoting public use of the country's national forests. The Occupancy Permits Act of 1915 refined the policy and implemented

multiyear permits for the construction of summer homes. Many of the cabins still in use today were built during that era and are still one-room or two-room buildings that lack running water, electricity or both.

''This is a primitive cabin,'' Saunders said. ''There are ants, spiders, bugs and mice. And the road is actually plowed shut in the winter.''

As the decades passed, the agency's policies concerning these recreational residences continued to evolve, culminating in the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 (CUFFA). The act established 20-year permits and a 10-year time frame for reappraising the land. The cabins, being privately owned, are not included in the appraisal. CUFFA also set the annual permit fee at 5 percent of the appraised value -- meaning a permit holder would pay $5,000 a year for use of the land valued at $100,000. For the Saunders, last year's appraisal determined the market value of their one-third acre at $104,000.

''We're six miles from Big Sky, where the rich folks live,'' Saunders said. ''They're forcing people out and only those with big money will be able to come in. But who do you think with big money would stay in a cabin with no running water?''

RULES AND REGS

On the Boulder River south of Big Timber, Mark and Kristie Jacoby's small cabin was built in 1938 of hand-scraped logs. Like all owners of recreational residences on Forest Service land, they are bound by a multitude of restrictions.

If they want to build a new deck, they need Forest Service approval. If they want to reroof or plow snow from their driveways, they need Forest Service approval. If they want to remove trees from the property, they not only need Forest Service approval, but they may be expected to pay the current stumpage rate for the timber they cut.

Unless grandfathered in, cabins cannot exceed 1,500 square feet, and they must be occupied at least 15 days each year, although full-time occupancy is strictly prohibited and many are not accessible during winter.

It's also important to note that permit holders do not have exclusive use of the property, meaning the public cannot be barred from reasonable access. The restrictions on the Gallatin National Forest have just recently been detailed in a draft operation and maintenance plan and a draft handbook supplement, both expected to become final this fall.

Between the regulations and increased fees, the Jacobys think their property has been devalued.

''It's kind of like a taking,'' Kristie Jacoby said. ''If you were any buyer with common sense, why would you buy it?''

COMPARABLE TO WHAT?

Still, those who own the cabins are desperate to keep them. Some of the cabin owners are following the designated process for seeking a reappraisal. But the second appraisal comes at their own expense and with no guarantees that an adjustment will be made.

Kristie Jacoby said she and Mark question the comparables used to determine the value of their property, which took a sudden leap from $38,000 to $90,000. The permit fee alone would rival the taxes on a large lot in Bozeman, she said.

They also wonder if the many restrictions were fully considered. Likewise, they question the timing of the appraisals.

''We're dismayed that they're using data from a year ago,'' she said. ''They don't take into account any changes in the market since then.''

Jacoby said they've contacted local Forest Service personnel, who have been helpful in explaining the process. But because they're following regulations, their hands are tied, she said.

In fact, as the Forest Service determines new permit fees, it is strictly adhering to policy. CUFFA designated a schedule and process for its 10-year appraisals and subsequent permits. The new fees won't go into effect until 2010, and permit holders facing increases in excess of 100 percent will see their increases phased in over three years.

Kimball Frome is the review appraiser for Gallatin National Forest. It is his job to look over the initial appraisals, which are conducted by a private appraiser familiar with Forest Service standards.

According to Frome, the appraiser tried to find the most local comparable property on which to base his calculations. He also pointed out that cabin owners were invited to join the appraiser on site during the appraisal process and were also invited to an informational meeting last summer. But Frome still fields calls from disgruntled cabin owners.

''My job as an appraiser is to be unbiased ... to get an impartial, unbiased look at the market and come up with a market value,'' he said.

Apparently, some local market values jumped considerably more than the annual index used to adjust annual permit fees between reappraisals.

But not all cabin owners face very large increases. And of the roughly 300 permits in the Gallatin and Custer forests, less than 10 percent of the permit holders are seeking reappraisal.

''Across the forest, I'd say in general the trend was up,'' said Jane Buchman, program manager for the Gallatin National Forest. ''But in the Hebgen District, there was one tract that went down.''

Anderson, of the national cabin owners group, said he's had reports of fees jumping as much as 1,000 percent. On the other hand, Jacoby knows of one cabin further up the Boulder, a cabin similar to hers, for which the fee only increased by $100.

''It doesn't seem equitable,'' she said. ''How can that be?''

A BALANCING ACT

Darryl Wilson of Billings owns a cabin 18 miles up the Boulder. The former appraiser said his experience allows him to see the situation from both sides.

''The public is entitled to a fair return on their money,'' he said, noting that the railroad traditionally charged a 12 percent annual fee and imposed even more stringent restrictions. ''The Forest Service thought 5 percent was a fair return.''

And yet, at a recent Forest Service meeting, Wilson said he was struck by the comments of longtime cabin owners who say the new fees might force them out.

''That's a shame. We see too many of the ranches in Montana going that way,'' he said.

Wilson points out that longtime cabin owners frequently serve as good stewards of the forest lands in their area, a role that might not be replicated by moneyed owners who live far away.

''The Forest Service should think about how can we keep these people in these cabins?'' he said.

Last year's reappraisal was not the first to draw Wilson's attention. A decade ago, he noted some discrepancies in his appraisal -- the comparable properties had access to electricity, and his cabin does not -- and was able to have his permit fee reduced by a third.

''They (Forest Service) worked with me very well,'' he said. ''It does work. They agreed with me. But the average person doesn't understand what to look for. At least I did.''

A PRIVILEGE

Shirley DeBelly attended the same meeting as Wilson. But the former Big Timber resident, who now lives in Bozeman, had less sympathy for her fellow cabin owners.

''I hear these people and think 'my gosh,' '' she said. ''We're privileged to have a cabin in the forest. We're lucky.''

But even DeBelly, who could not say whether her permit had increased or decreased in value, wondered about the future.

''Maybe it'll be too expensive for us some day,'' she mused.

Roger Ferguson of Red Lodge also feels privileged -- privileged that he still has a cabin. The simple log structure he purchased 19 years ago is located in Camp Senia, where the Cascade fire obliterated a neighbor's cabin only 100 yards distant.

''Firefighters did drop some trees,'' he said. ''Which is fine. It helped save the cabin. We're very appreciative of what they did. Some were not so lucky.''

Ferguson, however, is not so appreciative of the recent reappraisal. He and two of his neighbors are still wrestling with the fact that they are the only ones in their area whose property has tripled in value. He also wonders what the Forest Service will do, now that the fire-ravaged surroundings resemble a moonscape.

The three properties in question do border the West Fork of Rock Creek, he said. But the creek was barely visible until the agency asked that he clear away trees and brush for fire prevention. And permit fees didn't go up for several neighboring properties that have smaller creeks flowing past, he said.

''You don't mind paying your fair share,'' he said. ''We enjoy being on public land. But when you pencil it out per day, it is rather expensive to keep. And why is there such a discrepancy in value from our neighbors who are so close by?''

IS THE 'FAIRNESS' ACT FAIR?

Similar questions have been posed to Montana's congressional delegation. Responding to cabin owners' pleas, Rep. Denny Rehberg and Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester, along with elected officials from Wyoming, Idaho and other states, contacted Mark Rey, the undersecretary for natural resources and environment under the Department of Agriculture. In a letter to Rey, they said that CUFFA was meant to create a fair appraisal process for cabin owners.

''But we do not believe that the implementation of CUFFA complies with the intent of the Act,'' they wrote.

Citing concerns that responsible cabin owners with multigenerational ties to the forest may be replaced by wealthier vacation home buyers, they requested immediate action by the Forest Service. They ask that the Forest Service update the appraisal protocol so that it adheres to CUFFA's initial intent.

Anderson, too, would like to see the policy revised.

''What looked theoretically like a good, fair appraisal system was probably flawed from the outset,'' he said, explaining that the current reappraisal cycle is the first to test CUFFA. ''The law is bad. It needs to be changed.''

MAKING IT WORK

As cabin owners brace for the increases, they're looking for ways to hold on. Some suggested that the Forest Service offer them more flexibility in renting their cabins. The income, they say, could help them cover the permit fee.

Wilson wondered why cabin owners couldn't arrange reverse mortgages on their cabins, thereby helping to defray sudden fee increases. Other permit holders advocate a change in the amount of property being assessed. They propose that they pay only for the footprint of their cabins, since they do not have exclusive use of the rest of the lot. Kristie Jacoby thinks it would behoove everyone involved if the cabin owners were allowed to purchase their lots outright.

''They've done it in other places,'' she said, citing Fort Peck and Canyon Ferry. ''And it would get rid of administrative headaches.''

Not far from the Jacobys' cabin, a ''for sale'' sign advertises the listing of a neighboring property.

Anderson fears that sale signs could proliferate. And he wonders what will happen in the current real estate environment.

''It's like the foreclosure crisis,'' he said, noting that permit holders wouldn't be able to get a mortgage for property they don't own. In the end, he said, cabin owners deciding not to keep their permits will either have to sell or foot the bill to have their cabins removed from Forest Service property.

If people walk away, it's a loss of income for the federal government, he said. ''It's a lose-lose for everybody if this problem isn't addressed quickly.''